Wheeler v. Monroe’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 2017
7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Brooklyn Park Commissioners v. Armstrong · 152 Ohio St. 217 - Miller v. Village of Brookville · Phillips Mercantile Co. v. City of Albuquerque · Beverly Wood Associates v. City of Albuquerque
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No exact language is required to create a determinable fee or a condition subsequent, but there must be a clear indication in the dedication of an intent that an interest is given or granted as a determinable fee or on condition subsequent____ “[A] possibility of reverter is that future interest which a transferor keeps when he transfers an estate and attaches a special limitation which operates in his own favor.” When this type of interest is created, the grantee’s estate automatically terminates upon the happening of an event. Typical language which is used to justify a possibility of reverter is: “so long as,” “during,” or “until.” On the other hand, “a power of termination (also commonly called a right of re-entry) is that future interest which a transferor retains when he transfers an estate in his own favor.” When a right of re-entry is created, the grantor or his heirs are given an election to terminate the estate upon the happening of an event. Language creating a right of re-entry may follow from: “provided that,” “but if,” or “upon the express condition.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Prieskorn v. Maloof“[n]o exact language is required to create a determinable fee or a condition subsequent, but there must be a clear indicatoin [sic] in the dedication of an intent that an interest is given or granted as a determinable fee or on condition subsequent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gartley v. Ricketts
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.